ON: Transparency in Tech Giant's Employment Pool (Race, Gender)
Late Spring 2014, a US-based tech giant (Google) decided to publish details around their employment numbers. Including, apparently, breakdown by race and (perhaps) gender. Via a "Diversity Report," the very name of which leads me to suspect an agenda. From which little positive will emerge.
I applaud their willingness to bring this data out into the open, though not surprisingly it instantly caused controversy in the mass media. I am not entirely clear, from a market or non-market strategy perspective, what Google intended to accomplish by this publication. Other tech giants resist publishing same. I'm glad they did, however, as it brings the argument into the open. What I fear it "won't" do is is continue the conversation toward clear root-cause analysis, then policy decisions, based on data and facts. Not emotions or hyperbole.
The big players in tech haven't historically responded-to or otherwise willingly published employment numbers because of the controversy: low number of (certain) minorities. The low numbers certainly fit my observation, informal survey (i.e. mine, using my eyes) during my decade and a half in information technology.
Per the report, the tech industry is indeed dominated by White males (disclosure: I am a White male). In my opinion, next most-common is likely Indian-national males, then White females, Indian females, and finally "other": Blacks (male and female), Hispanic males, and a small percentage of (whatever remains).
These numbers certainly do not conform to the racial and gender makeup of the surrounding areas of these tech giants, at least not closely. Seattle metro, my home, is one of the Whiter major metro parts of the country. Silicon Valley, proportionately more Hispanics and Asians. And so on.
Would one "expect" the makeup of a global company to reflect (extremely) closely the race/gender of the surrounding community? To me, obviously "not." This is the fallacy, to me. To others, "obviously, yes, or even greater proportions of minorities to reflect (company's) commitment to helping the disadvantaged in their community, area, and country."
And herein lies the political disagreement. Politics is emotion-based, not factual or logical, until the facts become so overwhelmingly oppressive that they simply "must" be dealt with. Much to my dismay.
So suddenly Google, or any other tech major, chooses to publish their employment data: now, people with an agenda come out of the woodwork. People with little understanding, or interest, in how to run a performance-based business. Private industry is not the government, workers are actually accountable for profit, innovation, and efficiency in super-competitive markets. Thus, the majors (and many of the minors) need "the best" employees. If they don't have the best, they will fail, because the other guys are also hiring the best.
(Witness the American auto industry in the late 1970s for "best and brightest" in Japan vs. "imbecilic rah-rah patriotism," as the industry globalized.)
I am convinced that hiring in tech is race, gender, and orientation neutral. And truly global: it's about ability. Nothing more, or less. As a tech manager, I do so promise (my point of view) that this is how the vast...vast...majority of tech managers hire. I have hired, and on-occasion termed, black-white-red-yellow-male-female employees and temps. No one has ever...not once...uttered in my presence, or anyone else's presence (that I know of) about "we (should, should not) hire that fellow (lady) because (he, she) is a (fill in blank related to race or gender)." We do say: "...we (should, should not) because they (are, are not) the best candidate for the role, of the pool we've examined!"
Now: interestingly enough, obfuscating things a bit, "Asian" also means Indian national. Indian nationals are Asians, but I must admit it threw me for a moment: I think of "Asian", when I think of such things at all, as China-Japan-Korea, mostly. Nope.
If we assume the stats quoted in the "Diversity Report" are representative for Google, we may then wonder if they are true at the other front-line, super-competitive firms. I am a senior manager at one such firm: as a laptop, tablet, and software user, you may own their devices and certainly run their software, with hundreds of millions of other consumers worldwide. Any of these companies are no more than two or three major product missteps, maybe 3-5 years, from utter ruin if they screw up, btw. All or any of them. See earlier paragraph, "best and brightest." It's real.
From observation, I have the following conclusions. Take as you will, one man's opinion:
- White males (like me) do gravitate to STEM. STEM grads are attractive to these companies, by-definition. More candidates, statistically more hires all else being equal.
- White females, lesser STEM. Fewer candidates, fewer hires.
- Indian nationals in-particular that I work with have brilliant educations from some of the world's top schools, for example the IIT system in India. With a billion people, do the math: the cream of the cream will be skimmed off to work overseas (in the US and other Western countries) for jobs that require innovative technical thinking and ability to adapt to the peculiar Western way of business. There are a lot of candidates, thus many hires. Bounded by H1-B Visa availability and other political constraints.
- There are not that many Black candidates. "Why" is the burning question. They are hired, or not, per exactly the same bar as everyone else.
My view is "let's focus more on why there are proportionally fewer qualified Black candidates", or Hispanic, or other allegedly under-represented (or simply aggrieved) minorities. Fix the issue, don't make assumptions about the other end (the companies, who need the best) as the first step. Root cause before conspiracy, please.
I'll leave it to others to devise truly effective policies to nurture underrepresented minorities, probably starting at the grade school level and continuing through college. Let us accurately measure, analyze, and adjust such programs or policies as we go, OK?
Results, people, from Square 1. Not at the other end.
I applaud their willingness to bring this data out into the open, though not surprisingly it instantly caused controversy in the mass media. I am not entirely clear, from a market or non-market strategy perspective, what Google intended to accomplish by this publication. Other tech giants resist publishing same. I'm glad they did, however, as it brings the argument into the open. What I fear it "won't" do is is continue the conversation toward clear root-cause analysis, then policy decisions, based on data and facts. Not emotions or hyperbole.
The big players in tech haven't historically responded-to or otherwise willingly published employment numbers because of the controversy: low number of (certain) minorities. The low numbers certainly fit my observation, informal survey (i.e. mine, using my eyes) during my decade and a half in information technology.
Per the report, the tech industry is indeed dominated by White males (disclosure: I am a White male). In my opinion, next most-common is likely Indian-national males, then White females, Indian females, and finally "other": Blacks (male and female), Hispanic males, and a small percentage of (whatever remains).
These numbers certainly do not conform to the racial and gender makeup of the surrounding areas of these tech giants, at least not closely. Seattle metro, my home, is one of the Whiter major metro parts of the country. Silicon Valley, proportionately more Hispanics and Asians. And so on.
Would one "expect" the makeup of a global company to reflect (extremely) closely the race/gender of the surrounding community? To me, obviously "not." This is the fallacy, to me. To others, "obviously, yes, or even greater proportions of minorities to reflect (company's) commitment to helping the disadvantaged in their community, area, and country."
And herein lies the political disagreement. Politics is emotion-based, not factual or logical, until the facts become so overwhelmingly oppressive that they simply "must" be dealt with. Much to my dismay.
So suddenly Google, or any other tech major, chooses to publish their employment data: now, people with an agenda come out of the woodwork. People with little understanding, or interest, in how to run a performance-based business. Private industry is not the government, workers are actually accountable for profit, innovation, and efficiency in super-competitive markets. Thus, the majors (and many of the minors) need "the best" employees. If they don't have the best, they will fail, because the other guys are also hiring the best.
(Witness the American auto industry in the late 1970s for "best and brightest" in Japan vs. "imbecilic rah-rah patriotism," as the industry globalized.)
I am convinced that hiring in tech is race, gender, and orientation neutral. And truly global: it's about ability. Nothing more, or less. As a tech manager, I do so promise (my point of view) that this is how the vast...vast...majority of tech managers hire. I have hired, and on-occasion termed, black-white-red-yellow-male-female employees and temps. No one has ever...not once...uttered in my presence, or anyone else's presence (that I know of) about "we (should, should not) hire that fellow (lady) because (he, she) is a (fill in blank related to race or gender)." We do say: "...we (should, should not) because they (are, are not) the best candidate for the role, of the pool we've examined!"
Now: interestingly enough, obfuscating things a bit, "Asian" also means Indian national. Indian nationals are Asians, but I must admit it threw me for a moment: I think of "Asian", when I think of such things at all, as China-Japan-Korea, mostly. Nope.
If we assume the stats quoted in the "Diversity Report" are representative for Google, we may then wonder if they are true at the other front-line, super-competitive firms. I am a senior manager at one such firm: as a laptop, tablet, and software user, you may own their devices and certainly run their software, with hundreds of millions of other consumers worldwide. Any of these companies are no more than two or three major product missteps, maybe 3-5 years, from utter ruin if they screw up, btw. All or any of them. See earlier paragraph, "best and brightest." It's real.
From observation, I have the following conclusions. Take as you will, one man's opinion:
- White males (like me) do gravitate to STEM. STEM grads are attractive to these companies, by-definition. More candidates, statistically more hires all else being equal.
- White females, lesser STEM. Fewer candidates, fewer hires.
- Indian nationals in-particular that I work with have brilliant educations from some of the world's top schools, for example the IIT system in India. With a billion people, do the math: the cream of the cream will be skimmed off to work overseas (in the US and other Western countries) for jobs that require innovative technical thinking and ability to adapt to the peculiar Western way of business. There are a lot of candidates, thus many hires. Bounded by H1-B Visa availability and other political constraints.
- There are not that many Black candidates. "Why" is the burning question. They are hired, or not, per exactly the same bar as everyone else.
My view is "let's focus more on why there are proportionally fewer qualified Black candidates", or Hispanic, or other allegedly under-represented (or simply aggrieved) minorities. Fix the issue, don't make assumptions about the other end (the companies, who need the best) as the first step. Root cause before conspiracy, please.
I'll leave it to others to devise truly effective policies to nurture underrepresented minorities, probably starting at the grade school level and continuing through college. Let us accurately measure, analyze, and adjust such programs or policies as we go, OK?
Results, people, from Square 1. Not at the other end.
Total Comments 0
